NationStates Jolt Archive

If you had a choice between Privacy or Security, which one would you choose? Very often I hear people complaining that there is too much unnecessary control, or that it is getting tighter. I was thinking on that and asked myself "What is bad about security?". On one hand, it keeps us safe but on the other limits us.

But if people don't want security does that mean they have something to hide? Logicaly speaking... if somebody does not want a camera in his room there are two possible reasons 1)Wish to stay private or 2)Keep "something" secret. The "something" might be something innocent... but at the same time not.

What are your thoughts and remarks?

A bit of colum A, a bit of column B.

If someone doesn't want to be dragged of the street and interrogated at the surgical level, it might be A) Because of common sense, or B) to keep something secret. That something might be innocent, but then...

Privacy... it's not about hiding stuff, it is about individualism. i should be responsible for my own security and have the right to go about ensuring it however i see fit. on the other hand noone can guarantee complete security, even with very strict measures put in place because most security measures are punishment orientated rather than preventive (so they do not protect you against "dangers" that take no account of consequences).

it's a balancing act. at times of Trouble one has to be prepared to give up some Liberties to get the hightened security. but at the same time, when that time is done, the security is then lightened up and those suspended Liberties returned to the people.

Liberty.

false choice, based on the obviously untrue idea that those who will be granted the powers necessary to provide 'security' cannot possibly ever be the people we need to protect ourselves against. in other words, security (in the sense used in this question) over liberty necessarily results in a totalitarian nightmare, to which only liberty can ever provide security against.

liberty is security

Liberty, definately!

Security, definately!

Unless there was a credible; immediate danger, I will always pick liberty.

Unless there was a credible; immediate danger, I will always pick liberty.

and there the particular action would be justified by instantaneous necessity rather than generalized usefulness. which is something of a key distinction.

"Any society that would lose a little liberty, to gain a little security, will deserve neither, and lose both." - Ben Franklin.

I just wanted to be the first in this thread to quote that.

If you had a choice between Privacy or Security, which one would you choose? Very often I hear people complaining that there is too much unnecessary control, or that it is getting tighter. I was thinking on that and asked myself "What is bad about security?". On one hand, it keeps us safe but on the other limits us.

But if people don't want security does that mean they have something to hide? Logicaly speaking... if somebody does not want a camera in his room there are two possible reasons 1)Wish to stay private or 2)Keep "something" secret. The "something" might be something innocent... but at the same time not.

What are your thoughts and remarks?
If I had to pick, I'd pick Privacy. Why? Because I trust myself to look after my own business. I don't think anyone can look after me better than I can.

But it's really not an either or deal. You can have both.

"Any society that would lose a little liberty, to gain a little security, will deserve neither, and lose both." - Ben Franklin.

I just wanted to be the first in this thread to quote that.

Is there a version of Godwin which fits that quote instead of accusations of Nazism?

"Any society that would lose a little liberty, to gain a little security, will deserve neither, and lose both." - Ben Franklin.

I just wanted to be the first in this thread to quote that.

Here, here!

Security is an impossible dream. It is something every person is responsible for in his or her own life - government can do nothing but enforce law, which does not grant security of any kind. It is only an illusion,

But Liberty we can have. The right to do and say what we want, when we want, provided we do no active harm, can be available to everyone, just as long as we are willing to demand it.

I do demand it.

*looks at the Liberty Bell*

*looks at the Statue of Liberty*

*looks at Ms Liberty fom City of Heroes*
http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/coh_033104_003.jpg

Give me Liberty! :D

Is there a version of Godwin which fits that quote instead of accusations of Nazism?

Aeson's Law?

"Any society that would lose a little liberty, to gain a little security, will deserve neither, and lose both." - Ben Franklin.

one wonders if ben really meant that those who might be panicked into giving up a bit of liberty for some imagined security really didn't deserve liberty - seems sort of harsh to me

Liberty is security, but not the other way around.

It starts with an L...

Liberty.

But if people don't want security does that mean they have something to hide? Logicaly speaking... if somebody does not want a camera in his room there are two possible reasons 1)Wish to stay private or 2)Keep "something" secret. The "something" might be something innocent... but at the same time not.

What are your thoughts and remarks?

I am pretty much down the middle, but if you had to err in one direction, err in favor of liberty.

I am an obsessively private person, but in the grand scheme of things, I am not hiding anything Earth shattering.

But I really do value my space and my privacy, and I appreciate having the right to be a private person.

It starts with an L...

Is it le security?

one wonders if ben really meant that those who might be panicked into giving up a bit of liberty for some imagined security really didn't deserve liberty - seems sort of harsh to me

I think Franklins arguement was that those who are willing to give up Liberty, aka not fight for it, do not deserve to have other fight for them or their liberty

and there the particular action would be justified by instantaneous necessity rather than generalized usefulness. which is something of a key distinction.

Exactly. There is a REAL threat and not something made up by the government. The details would HAVE to be specific and state that there IS going to be something happening that FULLY JUSTIFIES any limitation on civil and political liberties, and it would have to be as a result of a natural disaster or an actual terrorist attack or an act of war. Basically, something that has a profound effect on the society. This doesn't mean that because it happens in one part of the country that security has to be beefed up elsewhere.

There is no legitimate excuse for curbing liberty. Ever.

As member of the German Pirate Party, my position is obvious!

I choose LIBERALITY!

http://accstudios.com/

As member of the German Pirate Party, my position is obvious!

You'd prefer pirates? I don't think they go in much for security. Liberty for the pirates, maybe.

I choose LIBERALITY!

http://accstudios.com/

Oh, god. Is that real?

I choose securilib. The best elements of both.

Oh, god. Is that real?Of course not. Do you really think it's 2021? Pfft, Silly boy.
As far as I know it is true... -_-

Choose.... SECURILIB!

:p

Of course not. Do you really think it's 2021? Pfft, Silly boy.
As far as I know it is true... -_-

What? Darn these infernal atomic clocks! I suspected buying from North Korea was a mistake!

Seriously (:eek:) though, 'tis a shame, because if you don't pay attention to the message behind it, it seems to be fairly decent.

As member of the German Pirate Party, my position is obvious!

No! No! No! Ninjas are the answer!

"Any society that would lose a little liberty, to gain a little security, will deserve neither, and lose both." - Ben Franklin.

I just wanted to be the first in this thread to quote that.

That's only an opinion.

Liberty > Security. Seriously, any society that will give up liberty for security will deserve neither, and be made a fool of as a mere nine-year old boy gets around the whole system. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2566634,00.html)

Liberty > Security. Seriously, any society that will give up liberty for security will deserve neither, and be made a fool of as a mere nine-year old boy gets around the whole system. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2566634,00.html)

Care to explain why, using logical debate and perhaps even providing examples?

As for your link, who says that this country has given up liberty to gain security?

A bit of colum A, a bit of column B.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin - He gives up freedom for security deserves, and gets, neither.

The more control the government gets over my life, the more insecure I feel.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin - He gives up freedom for security deserves, and gets, neither.

The more control the government gets over my life, the more insecure I feel.

That's because you resist and aren't willing to give up your liberty.

Those who have their liberty taken away in exchange for security, but resist having their liberty taken away, will lose both.

Care to explain why, using logical debate and perhaps even providing examples?

As for your link, who says that this country has given up liberty to gain security?
well, in theory the reason to give up the libery, but they really gained nothing, which goes along perfectly with the qoute I messed up. do the words "liqiud ban" mean anything to you? Because this is just 1 example of this ridiculous pursuit of security.

That's only an opinion.

Look, when you can make someone a duke by swearing at them, then you can say 'it's only an opinion'. (http://drmcninja.com/page.php?pageNum=30&issue=4)

well, they did in theory, but they really gained nothing. do the words "liqiud ban" mean anything to you?

You mean prohibition? That was very poor display of control. Obviously the illegals had plenty of liberty to actually do what they were doing, so the system failed in actually seizing their liberties. Besides, this is a controversial issue, not a matter of security (for the most part).

Look, when you can make someone a duke by swearing at them, then you can say 'it's only an opinion'. (http://drmcninja.com/page.php?pageNum=30&issue=4)

I'm sorry, but I did not understand that. Care to actually tell me instead of directing me to more links?

I'm sorry, but I did not understand that. Care to actually tell me instead of directing me to more links?

Nope. (http://drmcninja.com/page.php?pageNum=29&issue=4)

You mean prohibition? That was very poor display of control. Obviously the illegals had plenty of liberty to actually do what they were doing, so the system failed in actually seizing their liberties. Besides, this is a controversial issue, not a matter of security (for the most part).

obviously you don't read the newspaper. in august, your country banned all liqiuds from hand-luggage. now this silliness is falling apart, with looser regulation, and hopefuly it will enventually all end, qand finally there will be no rules against taking a god-damned bottle of water on a plane, but the policy is still stupid, whether or not it is in effect.

If you had a choice between Privacy or Security, which one would you choose? Very often I hear people complaining that there is too much unnecessary control, or that it is getting tighter. I was thinking on that and asked myself "What is bad about security?". On one hand, it keeps us safe but on the other limits us.

But if people don't want security does that mean they have something to hide? Logicaly speaking... if somebody does not want a camera in his room there are two possible reasons 1)Wish to stay private or 2)Keep "something" secret. The "something" might be something innocent... but at the same time not.

What are your thoughts and remarks?
A mix of the two, obviously. I don't want so much liberty that government is non-existent. Then again, I don't want to be permanently watched in a police state.

obviously you don't read the newspaper. in august, your country banned all liqiuds from hand-luggage. now this silliness is falling apart, with looser regulation, and hopefuly it will enventually all end, qand finally there will be no rules against taking a god-damned bottle of water on a plane, but the policy is still stupid, whether or not it is in effect.

I must've missed it, I apologize.

Well, it does provide increased security against a terrorist attack...

I must've missed it, I apologize.

Well, it does provide increased security against a terrorist attack...

no it does not provide ANY security. and the attack this was instated because of was a failiure, and thus there was no need to increase security.

no it does not provide ANY security. and the attack this was instated because of was a failiure, and thus there was no need to increase security.

Actually it does provide security. The question is, is the infinitesimal amount of security gained worth the substantial amount of liberty lost?

"Any society that would lose a little liberty, to gain a little security, will deserve neither, and lose both." - Ben Franklin.

I don't see why I should agree with Ben Franklin just for being Ben Franklin.

There is no legitimate excuse for curbing liberty. Ever.
Anarchist, are you? Or do you mean "There is no legitimate excuse for curbing liberty beyond the amount it is currently curbed [or was before 2001]"?

Security, thank you very much. I'd rather be alive with no rights (Of my own choosing, of course) then dead.

Of course, if it came down to a government I don't like choosing security over liberty, I'd go all V for Vendetta on their asses.

Security, thank you very much. I'd rather be alive with no rights (Of my own choosing, of course) then dead.
you are kidding, right?

I choose "Liberty". I might change my mind if the following is true:

1. There is a PROVEN threat to me and/or my loved ones.
2. The security measures would actually make the danger much less likely.

I've seen very little evidence of #1, and absolutely NONE of #2.

Security, but only if the security measures will actually make me significantly more secure.

I choose both with a preference for liberty. However, even Ben Franklin believed in giving up some liberty for security, i.e. he wasn't an anarchist.

I prefer my liberty, thank you very much!

Liberfuckinty.

You can't have liberty without security, so I choose security. Anarchy doesn't work, and always degenerated in to strongman rule where the weak are trampled underfoot and the people exploited; it's better to sacrifice some liberty to preserve a stable society than to sacrifice all of it in the chaos of anarchy.

However, security without liberty is pointless and self-defeating, so it's obviously vital that we balance the two to achieve the happiest medium.

Liberty. I'll take my chances. And a gun couldn't hurt. Well, not me. I might use it to hurt others. But only if I felt threatened by them or if they really, really pissed me off.

When regulation starts to move into the arena of victimless crimes it's gone way too far. A cop has no right to pull me over just because I chose not to wear a seatbelt. If I choose to endanger my own life then I have ever right to. It's my life to risk and I'm not hurting anyone else. Same thing with smoking. Or drinking (so long as I don't get behind the wheel).

Hmm..., well, living in a Christian democracy based on liberty, I find myself in a paradox.

Let's see now, who is the victim in the following:

Praying in School Vrs. Not Praying in School
Atheists Vrs. Muslims, I believe.
I'd say the Muslims would win, seeing most atheists don't care whether somebody would pray or not.

Not Wearing a Seatbelt Vrs. Wearing One (In Cars)
Nobody Vrs. Less of a chance of Yourself
Heck, I'd say to let society figure this out. Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to repeal a law like that.

Murdering Vrs. Not Murdering
Minus One Person Vrs. A Net Gain in People on the Average (Reproduction)
Keep This law. It's protecting future people.

Raping Vrs. Not Raping
Tons of Bad Effects Vrs. No Bad Affects
I'd go into the bad effects, but it'd take awhile. Keep this law.

Seatbelts are Needed in Cars (when made) Vrs. Seatbelts not need in Cars
People are more likely to wear them, and save people Vrs. a chance of death in a car accident.
Keep this law. It lets people have a base for protecting themselves.

So for me, it's really based on which one has a bigger victim.

I don't see why I should agree with Ben Franklin just for being Ben Franklin.


Anarchist, are you? Or do you mean "There is no legitimate excuse for curbing liberty beyond the amount it is currently curbed [or was before 2001]"?

No, I'm not a fucking anarchist. :upyours:

You can't have liberty without security, so I choose security. Anarchy doesn't work, and always degenerated in to strongman rule where the weak are trampled underfoot and the people exploited; it's better to sacrifice some liberty to preserve a stable society than to sacrifice all of it in the chaos of anarchy.

However, security without liberty is pointless and self-defeating, so it's obviously vital that we balance the two to achieve the happiest medium.


I'm still trying to figure out whether you actually believe that all this "heightened security" has made us more free (hint: it hasn't) or whether you're erecting a strawman and hoping that either no one will notice or we'll be afraid of being labeld "anarchist" or "Communist" or "pro-terrorist" and won't call you on this utter nonsense.

I'm still trying to figure out whether you actually believe that all this "heightened security" has made us more free (hint: it hasn't) or whether you're erecting a strawman and hoping that either no one will notice or we'll be afraid of being labeld "anarchist" or "Communist" or "pro-terrorist" and won't call you on this utter nonsense.

I'm not talking about the current environment. I'm talking about security in general; there's a difference between creating an environment secure enough for liberty to exist and a wanton government taking away freedoms in the name of a dubious threat.

I'm still trying to figure out whether you actually believe that all this "heightened security" has made us more free (hint: it hasn't) or whether you're erecting a strawman and hoping that either no one will notice or we'll be afraid of being labeld "anarchist" or "Communist" or "pro-terrorist" and won't call you on this utter nonsense.

Few who in this thread believe that the "heightened security" has made us more free. However, anyone who wants some kind of government is one who will give up some liberty for security. If someone steals/damages my property I can't legally go over to their place and beat the shit out of them. I instead will call the cops and maybe sue them in small claims court.

In the end, liberty has to outrank our desire for security. Being more secure (supposively) at the expense of our freedoms is not a price we should have to pay. It is pretty pointless as any excessive security mesures would make our own government the new threat instead of the other dangers we passed the new security measures to feel more secure to begin with. Anyone who values freedom in the slightest would come to the same conclusion.

Security, thank you very much. I'd rather be alive with no rights (Of my own choosing, of course) then dead.

Exactly. What's the point of liberty if you're dead?

Liberty FTW!!!!!

Both, but if I had to choose: Liberty.

Liberty is security.

Liberty is security.

What do you mean?

If you had a choice between Privacy or Security, which one would you choose? Very often I hear people complaining that there is too much unnecessary control, or that it is getting tighter. I was thinking on that and asked myself "What is bad about security?". On one hand, it keeps us safe but on the other limits us.

But if people don't want security does that mean they have something to hide? Logicaly speaking... if somebody does not want a camera in his room there are two possible reasons 1)Wish to stay private or 2)Keep "something" secret. The "something" might be something innocent... but at the same time not.

What are your thoughts and remarks?

There is a Middle Way, you know...

I choose the blank line in between the first and second paragraphs.

What do you mean?

I should clarify that I don't mean all kinds of liberty, but rather "liberty" as it tends to be used in these discussions. It amounts to security from the state - to being protected from the abuses and violations of the alleged enforcers of the law.

That's why nations that have sacrificed liberty for perceived security have not actually made their citizens secure.

I should clarify that I don't mean all kinds of liberty, but rather "liberty" as it tends to be used in these discussions. It amounts to security from the state - to being protected from the abuses and violations of the alleged enforcers of the law.

That's why nations that have sacrificed liberty for perceived security have not actually made their citizens secure.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. :)

And I fully agree with you.

I should clarify that I don't mean all kinds of liberty, but rather "liberty" as it tends to be used in these discussions. It amounts to security from the state - to being protected from the abuses and violations of the alleged enforcers of the law.

That's why nations that have sacrificed liberty for perceived security have not actually made their citizens secure.

What if the security measures are targeted at a select group of individuals who are most likely to upset security?

If the population at large isn't targeted by sterner security measures, then their liberty is hardly compromised, no?

Security, thank you very much. I'd rather be alive with no rights (Of my own choosing, of course) then dead.

Of course, if it came down to a government I don't like choosing security over liberty, I'd go all V for Vendetta on their asses.

You keep saying this, and I'd like to show you exactly why this is wrong.

Imagine you had a big gun. (I mean a really big gun. 1 million chambers or more.)
Would you rather that somebody put one good bullet in that gun and shot it at you once?
Or would you rather somebody put bird shot in every single chamber and shot it at you (again, once)?

Liberty is security.

are we both (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12261275&postcount=7) quoting someone else, or is that just the obvious phrase?

If you had a choice between Privacy or Security, which one would you choose? Very often I hear people complaining that there is too much unnecessary control, or that it is getting tighter. I was thinking on that and asked myself "What is bad about security?". On one hand, it keeps us safe but on the other limits us.

But if people don't want security does that mean they have something to hide? Logicaly speaking... if somebody does not want a camera in his room there are two possible reasons 1)Wish to stay private or 2)Keep "something" secret. The "something" might be something innocent... but at the same time not.

What are your thoughts and remarks?

None of your damn business.

are we both (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12261275&postcount=7) quoting someone else, or is that just the obvious phrase?

Just the obvious phrase, I think.

Though my phrasing was partly inspired by the phrasing of the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects

If the population at large isn't targeted by sterner security measures, then their liberty is hardly compromised, no?

"Security" refers not just to actuality but also to possibility.

If lots of people are being murdered around me every day, it is not much of a comfort to know that I, specifically, have not yet been targeted, because I have no guarantee that I will not be next. The same applies to statist violations of privacy and due process.

Though my phrasing was partly inspired by the phrasing of the Fourth Amendment:

damn american revolutionaries

on that note, ken macleod just pointed me towards an interesting quote (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr05/Leupp0418.htm) from jefferson:

On January 3, 1793, the first Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Short, the American ambassador to Paris, who had criticized the early excesses of the French Revolution. Praising the insurrection, he asked whether “ever such a prize” had been “won with so little innocent blood?” His “own affections,” Jefferson added, “have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than as it now is.”

now that is revolutionary zeal

damn american revolutionaries

on that note, ken macleod just pointed me towards an interesting quote (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr05/Leupp0418.htm) from jefferson:



now that is revolutionary zeal

Damn... Jefferson was HARD CORE!

Well it's true, if every country was made up of only 2 people, then they would be free.

Damn... Jefferson was HARD CORE!

"One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic"
~t.j.